I vote (1)...my purple pen would be itching to cross out the when if I saw this written down.

I'd pardon it spoken and twitch if it was written.

I do tolerate (and perpetuate) a great deal of poor grammar in informal formats¹ - livejournal, email, fiction with "voice" - but for some reason, this particular one just grates.

---

[1] I personally tend to run two irrelevant words together to attempt to convey a single concept, usually a sensory one for which I don't know of a pre-existing word. I also overuse 'and' to the degree that sometimes I'm surprised anyone puts up with my livejournal/email writing.

Those two sentences don't mean exactly the same thing. They have the same first level meaning, but different emphasis. "When" puts some emphasis on the event - his wife dying - and then his being depressed as an effect of that event. WIthout the when, the emphasis is on his depression as the subject, with the fact that his wife died as the explanation. There's no intention to point out the actual event of her death as something for the listener/reader to think about, just the fact that she died as a fait accompli.

It's a sort of continuum, something like this:
- He got depressed right after his wife died.
- He got depressed right after when his wife died
- His wife died, and right after that, he got depressed.

I think it means what I described it as meaning, which is almost the "intended meaning" but with a subtle change in emphasis. Whether that subtle change was consciously intentional or not, it's there, and probably gives a clue as to how the speaker/writer was thinking about it. It sounds just fine.

In speech, I'd just assume it was one of those times when you say a word and then realize that it doesn't take the sentence in the direction you wanted it to go, but you haven't gone so far with it that you have to just lapse into influency and start over.

In writing, the interpretation Cos mentioned might occur to me, but it's definitely not a good way of expressing either possible meaning.

Category 2. It's fine, and I might say it if I hadn't throught out the sentence before I spoke it, but the intended meaning seems clearer.

Put me in for a 2. I don't like it, but it's not total junk. I'd correct it if I was editing a document in it, but I'd let it go in conversation, I think.

A 2, but closer to the 3 side than the 1 side. Probably something like 2.4 - it's only very slightly weird, and I probably wouldn't produce it, but I can accept it with no problem. I'm not sure if prosody makes a difference here or not - I have no idea how to talk about prosody in any kind of technical manner, and I apologize for that, but roughly I can imagine it being either closer to "He got depressed right after, when his wife died" or "He got depressed right after when his wife died" but both seem alright - I might find the first a little less weird at least in very casual contexts, but even the second is reasonably okay.

"It's junk" is too strong, but I definitely did make a face when I first read it. Usually with subtly wrong sentences you notice the mistake in the second reading. This was a weird sentence in that I noticed it was technically correct in the second reading.

I pick #1, unless the writer/speaker put an obvious comma or other-type pause between after and when. Contextual example:

The first week of spring was a happy time. He got depressed right after, when his wife died.

It gives it a slightly different interpretation, though. I guess I'd have to stick with #1.

I don't know that I'd call it junk but it makes my brain itch in a way most like (1).

I'd say 2. It bothers me to read it, but I don't think I would even notice it if it were spoken.

...if it was written or spoken. If written, no excuse. If spoken, was there a pause in the middle? Probably no excuse for spoken, either.

2)OK to speak, but not acceptable written in anything formal, unless a comma or semi-colon is added, so it becomes, 'He got depressed right after; when his wife died.'.

If I was into pedantry, I'd have to replace the 'got' with 'became'. We were banned from using 'got' or 'get' in English when at school; but my English is so flawed I'd not be too aggrieved by the 'got' or the 'when' if the feeling of the text was OK or the user was operating at the limits of their English skills.

I randomly found your LJ, but here's my two cents...

1.

"After when" is a time flow redundancy.

Kinda like "preheating" an oven. What are you going to do, heat it up before you heat it up? :-P

I found you through random, so I forgive me if I sound completely off.

My grammar skills are not anywhere near great, but that sentence seems very weak to me... What exactly is it for?


First off, it is telling, not showing. He got depressed... so what? It's 1 am, but I'll try something:

The void that his wife filled with her life was left vacant, sinking the man into a dark and lonely existance.

It probably sucks, but it was just an example. I'm sure you can do much better.


If you want to tell it, and not show it, it is still weak. If it was just in conversation, I wouldn't think twice. But if it is to be in a slightly more professional area, like a speech or article, I would pass over it, not really caring.